This is noted and considered out of scope:
>Obviously some traits are more genetic, and thus inherent, than others, but that is not the scope of this post as even highly-heritable traits will result in a large distribution of outcomes.
This is noted and considered out of scope:
>Obviously some traits are more genetic, and thus inherent, than others, but that is not the scope of this post as even highly-heritable traits will result in a large distribution of outcomes.
Generally agree; I mention it since from my point of view, I would have spent most of the article criticizing the rules and policies politically and finding ways to improve them, rather than constantly going on about the personal lives of some that have exploited them (although it does seem like it cannot be helped sometimes).
I did, but I'm not sure I have enough information to conclude if what was done should be illegal/allowed or not, since this is based on various sections of leaked documents, but it's quite possible some bad things were involved. (One may remark that turning small investments into the many billions quickly clearly is a sign that foul play was involved, but recall that his original 10% stake in FB would be worth almost $100B today in less than 20 years. I do think he sold most of the stake long ago, though.)
What seems most unfair here is how difficult dealing with private equity is as a normal person; the entire purpose of the Roth IRA is that you do not pay any taxes afterwards, and that is how it functions for everyone, whether you are rich or not. On the other hand, the same cannot be said about the ability to purchase, find, and work with private equity. I understand many publications may dislike certain people (as one can note from who they choose to mention the most), but I don't see a reason why he would decline using tax-advantaged accounts just because he has attained significantly larger wealth and roi than most others using them.
Who knows. There are so many algorithms and people at play in the decisions to ban things on large platforms that most people that work at the organization itself won't even be able to tell you who or what, specifically, was responsible.
That's why this gets posted to HN with hope that enough relevant people will notice such that remediation has a real chance of occurring, because with a normal 'appeal' your chances are basically nil regardless of how incorrect the ban was.
I disagree that Discord is niche at this point. They're already worth several billion and it's still growing significantly, with perhaps several hundred million users and very high user-retention, usage, network effects, and proprietary lock-in. I'd still invest in Discord today if I could, in a heartbeat.
I view one of the largest reasons for this as trying to ensure they keep user retention for younger demographics for live chat, which they've been lagging behind quite a bit compared to e.g. Discord. If Facebook completely loses their young demographic network effects it would be very difficult for them to regain them.
This will be tough as Discord is currently happily enjoying its unlimited growth and no profits phase, and has enough network effects that it's almost impossible to not use it as a young Internet-using male in many countries.
It's interesting the large amount of regulations that are involved with gambling, due to how addictive and potentially harmful it is.
Facebook seems to be one of the few things even more addictive than gambling. What is one of the only things humans value more than money? Attention, love, affection, friendship, relationships...